Well when you realize we treat school as glorified babysitting and not just education, part of the reason becomes more obvious. Parents work 40 hours so we need kids in school roughly that length of time. Especially when both parents have to work to afford to live.
We need to uplift a lot about the entire system for it to work.
Especially when both parents have to work to afford to live.
That's exactly the problem right there.
It's a bit depressing to me that we've known this for at least twenty years, and possibly more and it's still a problem.
A major concern has been busing. Even in normal times, districts use the same buses and drivers for students of all ages. They stagger start times to do that, with high schoolers arriving and leaving school earliest in the day. The idea is that they can handle being alone in the dark at a bus stop more readily than smaller children, and it also lets them get home first to help take care of younger siblings after school.
If high schools started as late as middle and elementary schools, that would likely mean strain on transportation resources. O'Connell said Nashville's limited mass transit compounds the problem.
"That is one of the biggest issues to resolve," he said.
This is basically it, school systems not wanting to buy the extra buses or hire the extra drivers they'd need.
Unfortunately I don't see this ever being solved without a major cultural/financial shift in the USA towards properly funding education. Too much financial pressure to have fewer buses and fewer drivers. If my high school and middle school had started at the same time as the elementary, that'd be like 14 new buses alone at $60k-$110k a pop, not including driver wages and the diesel for each one...and we had more than one high school and middle school in our district. So it'd be more like 50 new buses, just to start HS and middle school at the same time as elementary. The cost would eat smaller districts alive. It'd be several million just to procure the buses new.
It's baffling how many U.S problems can be traced back to car-oriented development.
Here in Sweden, dedicated school buses are uncommon - getting to school is usually a matter of walking when young, and then using the common public transportation when older, or biking, or a mix of those two.
Here's how I got to school while growing up:
Note that this was one of the most car-oriented cities in Sweden of about 100k people, meaning that this experience is probably unusually bad for Sweden.
When I was at school, the bus was a charter from the company that ran the local public bus fleet. Every other time it was running public routes or just part of that companies reserve.
But this was in the UK, where dedicated school buses are exceptional.
In the school district that I live in (and where my kids attend school), elementary school starts earliest and middle/high school both start at roughly the same time.
I've found that this works really well since my youngest wakes up and is ready to go earliest anyways, I don't have to adjust my schedule because they're out of the house before I have to get to work and I would need after school care regardless. My older kids can more or less fend for themselves before school so I don't need to worry about them while I get to work before they leave.
If elementary school started at 9 like high school and middle school I'd have to organize care for my youngest both before and after school since I'd be working at both times.
schools are largely daycare facilities for the low/middle income brackets.
Because school is entirely geared towards parents. Nothing about school is actually good for the people going through it, but the system doesn't actually care about them, and isn't designed to.
Nothing? I’d argue that learning mathematics is good for people going through school but then again I’m no expert in education.
It's not the concept, it's the execution.
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with having a classroom of students being taught a curriculum. It’s effective even if it’s inefficient. The execution is lacking for sure, but to suggest that none of it is good for students is a little dramatic.
Isn't that about what I said? Of course the idea of children learning important topics in an organized fashion is decent. The objections I have are the forced social structures, mandatory attendance at risk of school or legal punishment, limited ability to specialize in topics or pick a curriculum, rigid schedules all day enforced with various punishments or humiliation including strict control of access to bathrooms, and in general the prison-like obsession with routines and schedules.
I'd add the fact that not everyone learns the same way, and while some people do well with lectures and note-taking, others would be better reading books alone, and others would be better in a discussion format. My experiences varied wildly. One major issue for me was that the strict scheduling and punitive obsessions didn't work well with what was going on with my health and family life, but there's little room for that. Personally I would have done much better to have not attended school at all. Each year was pretty much an excruciating review of things I learned from books 2 years before, combined with extensive peer and administration torture.
My high school had block scheduling, we'd have 2 90 minute classes in the morning, then "I Block" in the middle of the day which was essentially our homeroom, then 2 more classes in the afternoon.
When they first started it, I block was a pretty freeform thing, you had to check in with your homeroom teacher, but could then go pretty much anywhere in the school and do whatever, go see your other teachers to get some help or just hang out in their room, go to the library, etc.
They slowly cracked down on that, first one day a week you had to be in your homeroom for SSR (Sustained Silent Reading, you weren't allowed to do homework or anything else, you had to sit there reading silently) and they slowly cut down on reasons you were allowed to be out of your homeroom room during I block without a note or hall pass to the point that when I graduated they were making announcements at the beginning of I block that anyone caught in the halls without a hall pass would be written up for, and I vividly remember this specific wording, "defiance and insubordination"
What the actual fuck was that shit? That feels like wording they would use in an actual prison or in the military or something?
We were a relatively safe, solidly middle class suburban district, we didn't have rampant gang issues, violence, drug use, anything of the sort, the odd troublemaker or prblem child sure, but overall we pretty much kept ourselves in line, there wasn't any need to crack the whip on us.
It should also say not every person has to be at their job at 9am plugging up the road for the same reason said teens are being dropped off by these parents.
They cite one reason, busses, for the issue? With no mention of sports? Bad reporting.
I can tell you my personal hypothesis as to why it happens in universities:
It has always been about work. It lines up with most morning shifts because no one can afford childcare.
A major concern has been busing. Even in normal times, districts use the same buses and drivers for students of all ages. They stagger start times to do that, with high schoolers arriving and leaving school earliest in the day. The idea is that they can handle being alone in the dark at a bus stop more readily than smaller children, and it also lets them get home first to help take care of younger siblings after school.
If high schools started as late as middle and elementary schools, that would likely mean strain on transportation resources. O'Connell said Nashville's limited mass transit compounds the problem.
Are staggered start times common in America?
Every school district I've been in does this.
Very
I've only seen it the other way around, though. Elementary starts first around 7:30 am, middle school at 8 and high school 8:30.
Good God! 7.30!
9am start here for more or less everything, give or take 10 minutes (Ireland).
My preschooler is 9.30.
My oldest starts school at 7:35 and my youngest starts school at 9:20.
In my experience talking with school officials and reading between the lines of BS that get fed out by them, you get to take your pick because all are true.
Really all of them are actual reasons that they start so early despite overwhelming research that starting later in the morning would lead to better academic outcomes and better long-term information retention.
Schools in the USA are not about education. They are conditioning centers to "prepare" kids for abusive expectations in post graduation employment.
Because parents would then have to pay someone to babysit and then take their kids to school at the later time in addition to after school care. And why can't parents go to work later? Same reason companies aren't allowing work from home even though it's proven that the majority of people are more productive. The managers need to justify their existence, so they have to have their employees all there at the same time. And for some reason society has decided that morning people are somehow better than everyone else.
Because parents have to go to work, and teens with boyfriends/girlfriends don't know how to use condoms and can't get abortions in some states. Also, used car prices and insurance make teens driving to school on their own unaffordable.
First it has to start early enough so parents can get kids off then get to work. Also, extra circular activities like sports and clubs, as well as parents wanting kids home when they are home.
I'm pretty sure it just boils down to hatred of young people. "I had to get up early so you do too."
Which is why I think we should amend the constitution to allow cruel and unusual punishments for people who utter the phrase "build a better world for our children."
Actual answer one heard that unfortunately makes sense: school sports after class. If you start classes later everything gets pushed back to obscene times.
Personally my high school started a half hour in grade 12. Just that made a world of difference.
that unfortunately makes sense: school sports after class
I disagree that it makes sense. Get the sports out of the school system entirely and have them be community-based or similar. I think that should apply that to most extracurriculars. I participated in sports, band, theatre, etc. so it's not like I just hated it (I would argue that art, band, choir, gym, etc. are still good to have in the curricula of schools, just not the traditionally after-school part).
It all goes back to the farmers. Farmers were up at the crack of dawn to use the light, so industry followed them. Now we're trapped in a circle, following the same schedule because we follow the same schedule.
Our regular middle schools start late. It can work. The reason they don't do it for high school where it is needed most is sports.
Just wondering friends in Canada and EU - when do your teens start the class day? I don't doubt this is yet another thing US education gets wrong but just wondering how better funded education systems are doing things.
The UK here. I think classes started for me just before 9 but the school would generally open a little after 8 so parents could drop their kids off.
It's worth mentioning we have a semi functioning public transport system so for all schools in urban areas, teenagers are expected to use that to get to school.
Out in the country school buses are still a thing though.
Easy. School isn't for school. It's a daycare with its hours offset from the working day, skewing early so parents can get their kids there before work. Kids spend 2 hours on a bus and 7 hours in a classroom every day because both of their parents have to work.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.